D&D General In 2025 FR D&D should PCs any longer be wary of the 'evil' humanoids?

[Tea Cozy]

I don't think anyone had a problem with the existence of evil Lolth-worshiping drow in Menzoberranzan. Just the idea that drow are biologically predisposed to evil because of some curse.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

To borrow a phrase… No, they weren’t.

The 2014 PHB, page 49 states “a pact struck generations ago infused the essence of Asmodeus … into their bloodline. … the result of an ancient sin, for which they and their children and their children’s children will always be held accountable.”

In the 2024 PHB, “Tiefling were either born in the outer planes or have ancestors who originated there.” More importantly, they “are linked by blood to a devil, demon, or other fiend.”

Call me crazy but “they, and their children, and their children’s children” and “linked by blood” sound a lot like something that can be shortened to the term I used… “descent.”

Based on the PHB canon, descent is involved. A warlock casting spells near a pregnant woman and turning her unborn child into a tiefling is your head canon.

But we are getting away from what is important here.

The important thing is:

Does a creature’s morality/alignment label arise out of its choices, or do its choices arise out of its morality/alignment label?

I would argue for outer planes denizens, which are literally created from ideals incarnated, the morality/alignment can be considered inborn.

In all other cases, the morality/alignment label arises out of the actions/choices of the creature, though the label is useful when PCs meet a mature creature since past decisions (which gave rise to the creature’s alignment label) are a good indicator of future behavior.

This does not mean behavior (and thus alignment) cannot later change. A paladin that has been lawful good for 20 years can fall a year later, and a villain that has been evil for 20 years can be redeemed. If you meet either 19 years into their career, though, giving them a LG or CE label as a shorthand for the DM is fine. Alignment, though it has recently fallen out of fashion, is a fine tool, but is not a straitjacket.

Also, even more important is taking about the alignment of sacred cows.

All I'm saying is, I have seen--from canon WotC sources--stuff that indicates it does not have to happen that way. Couldn't care less beyond that.

Also, for the record, if my bias goes in any direction with regard to tieflings vs minotaurs....it's in favor of minotaurs. I dislike the fact that people are going to hate on the latter, while I find the "omg they're so COOOOOOL" that tieflings get, frankly, tedious. Bael Turath made tieflings interesting; every single thing you've said about the (apparently) hard-coded 5e canon of tieflings makes them progressively more dull and one-note than the previous.

As is the case with half a dozen things or more, I genuinely find the 4e lore superior. Nothing to do with the fact that it arrived in that edition--everything to do with the new lore just being a snoozefest at best and Icky Implications at worst.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Perhaps surprisingly given my pretty hardline stance against always-evil species, this is great news IMO.

I would argue that your opposition is a matter of desiring contrast.

"They're Just Always Evil, get over it" is a rejection of contrast. But by that same token, "they're all Beautiful Individuals Who Must Be Individually Judged" also takes out contrast.

Having Lolthsworn Drow who are people with moral choice but still chose to be evil, is greater nuance than a world where nobody ever chooses to do things we consider wrong unless coerced or manipulated. Sometimes, some people choose to be evil even when they didn't have to be. And a few of the people in that society will be folks who haven't found a way to escape yet, and that makes for a good story, trying to help the few good souls escape the prison of societal evil they're locked in, not so they can abandon everything about what they were, but so they can join a different group of their own people who aren't like that WITHOUT being just like us.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Not their fault, they are forced into it. Yadda yadda.

If people want to find issue with 'auto-enemy' they will.

"Alas, the poor Lich/Vampire, they only act by their nature!"

Well, at least for my part, I do (and always will) draw the line at liches, people who willingly became vampires, and illithids, that sort of thing.

At least in 4e, illithids can essentially "go vegan" and eat the products of a form of moss. That they choose to kill people instead indicates they are evil. I am willing to accept an illithid trying to change; I am not willing to accept an illithid that I am supposed to instantaneously pity without a demonstration on their part that they are, in fact, trying to be different or have actually behaved differently.

Vampires, or at least vampire spawn, can be created forcibly (that's....pretty much the story behind Astarion in BG3, he's a spawn-slave, created by someone who manipulated him into "accepting willingly" by forcing him into a horrible situation; he barely had the ability to refuse, being near-dead when the "offer" was made.) Curing them is difficult, depending on what story/continuity you're looking at, but in general it's a difficult thing to escape. I can see how that might foster pity. But the vast majority of true vampires get there by embracing their horror. BG3 actually does a really good job of showing this through some of the books you read in Cazador's palace.

Liches deserve special dislike, because there it's 100% purely intentional, it requires numerous evil actions, and then specifically it requires the knowing murder of a completely innocent person. You literally can't become a lich without doing horrible, almost literally unspeakable evil. There are certain lines that, if you cross them, there really might not ever be a way to "go back". I know that sort of thing is out of vogue today, the idea that there can be truly eternal consequences for a small number of specific actions, but when it comes to liches specifically I think such a line applies.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If it exists, someone will be into it.

Rule 34, SFW corollary. "If it exists, someone's into it."

The larger the population grows, the closer to 100% true this statement becomes. Every new sapient soul is a new chance for some kind of unexpected niche interest...including romantic ones.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

To build on this, Neverwinter will have societal prejudice against people from Luskan, regardless of species, due to the long history of bad blood between the two cities.

Hate the Luskanite because he’s a pirate who’d rob his own mother blind not because he’s an orc or a tiefling or a wererat.

I am not sure the crowd that is ill at ease with discrimination against a group of people based on their species, because it reminds them of real life racism, will be more at ease with prejudice based on nationality?

Conversely, the crowd who can accept NPCs having prejudice against people coming from a specific city (be it Luskan or Menzoberranzan) would have no problem with NPCs being racists as well.

 

[Umbran]

What was unfair about it?

You having a problem or frustration with different people, in different contexts, having different opinions is not fair to any of the speakers in question. It isn't like someone here should have to go to that thread, read it, and take on its position for your benefit, or something.

... and personally I think that one perhaps should have to think even a little bit if taking a life is warranted, even in fiction.

And that's the condescension, there.

Are they playing with you? If not, why does what you think should happen matter?

 

[Alzrius]

The “zombies” don’t have to be literal zombies. The point of the suggestion is that they’re creatures with no independent thought or will, let alone social structures or culture to speak of. One can easily imagine fantastical creatures vulnerable to any and all of the tactics you describe that lack free will or society.

So to be clear, you're positing a type of creatures that are recognizably human in their functions/biology (hence why tactics which can work on humanoid creatures, such as blinding them with a bright flash or drowning them will work), and which have the same basic psychology (including a sense of self-preservation, hence fleeing when they fail a morale check), and also possess creativity and teamwork (hence the use of setting traps and flanking maneuvers), all while lacking free will, social structures, or any sort of culture, but need to be fairly numerous so as to constitute an easily-recognizable threat that's widespread throughout at least a considerable portion of the game world.

All while avoiding any sort of racist or bigoted tropes or representations, since these negative qualities can't be due to socio-cultural factors. And their presentation needs to set them up as antagonists to heroic PCs, and presumably the innocent people that heroic PCs want to protect. And which can be dealt with via straightforward applications of lethal force.

So...hoops, then?

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Is it fair to say that some people feel that they need clearly telegraphed enemies that can be slaughtered without second though, like the Doomguy gunning down demons?

I'd say it is. Sometimes, we just want to kill people. If I play Medal of Honor where I am gunning down German soldiers, I may not want to have to reflect on the endoctrination of young men in a fascist society, leading them to be in the place where I gun them down. In real life, of course, I would be beholden by the Geneva convention to take prisonners, and be under the obligation to ensure their safety after surrending. In a FPS, I except them to fight until they die. Not all RPGs are FPS of course, but sometimes, you want to, yes, be able to apply lethal force without having moral qualm about it. You can rationalize it in a fight in self defence, but often in adventure, it's not self defence. If you're assaulting the Evil Citadel of Doom, it's not self-defence. It's you entering the place through the loo's evacuation pipe and getting inside, and then you meet the janitor. It is, sometime, fun to say "OK, he's not just a janitor. He's not just an endoctrinated member of a mass-slaughtering cult who was born into it and never had the opportunity to rationally compare several religion in order to join the best one (or none), he's not just an employee of the enemy, who happens to be the legitimate authority over him and his family, he's not just a criminal that deserve to be brought to justice but not killed, he's... a foe to be killed. That we heroically overcome before he could yell alarm and wake the whole Citadel of Doom".

While I am all for having nuance in my game, which rarely involve indiscriminate slaughters, I am guilty of the simple pleasure of sometime liking to have enemies that I can kill without qualm in a cathartic fantasy. If I roleplay an evil character, of course I'd kill the janitor, he's accomplice of a band of marauding looters and I'd be dealing justice in a Judge Dredd way. But sometimes I roleplay good characters and they'd not be OK with wanton slaughters. So, having foes that are "killable" is a plus. Not everyone, not all the time, but their presence is good.

And it's also good to have variety, because unintelligent zombies tends to become a chore and automata feels to sci-fi.

Because, whilst there certainly can be situations where the enemies are just pretty unquestionably deserving it, I don't think it is too much to ask this to be telegraphed by the situation, by what these people have done and are about to do, rather than by their mere species or appearance.

Sure. But all the time? Most of the time, you don't get enough background on the enemy characters to assess the situation.

Furthermore, I think that if we are to have a game where characters feel like real people with real feelings and real morals, then I don't think violence needs to be completely guilt free. Like even if it might be necessary and justified in the situations good people probably should not solely feel unfiltered joy when killing sentient beings.

Sure. But I think there is a place for both: you can have some enemies that you kill (look, he's cursed, the only way to end his curse is to kill him, that's not fun but hey, there is no way to remove this curse and he'll always drink baby blood on the full moon because of it...), enemies that you kill with qualms (remember janitor Bob? He was wiping the floor for the Dark Lord and we needed his uniform... he had to die, there was no other choice, but I feel guilty about him) and enemies you don't kill (because you fail to justifiy any reason to do so). Like an enemy who have surrended, like most sentient would rationnaly do when facing overpowering heroes (and a behaviour very few published adventure comments on).

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

I personally sometimes do like simple action focused stories myself, and I don't think you need evil for it. Saying evil doesn't exist doesn't mean you have to think about every opponent you come across.

That's an axiom we don't share. And that's nice because your formulated the disconnect early in your demonstration and in a way that makes it quite clear that we're approaching the situation from different starting points.

For me, if you're roleplaying a character, you need to act according the moral compass you're roleplaying. If you're roleplaying a scum, you can probably kill people for no reason (or because it suits you, like you need gold and he has a purse). If you're roleplaying a character with an alien morality, you should endeavour to adhere to it. But if you're roleplaying a character who is "conventionnally good by modern standards[*]", then you need to think about every enemy you come across. Are you acting in self-defence? Is your action proportionate? Is there any other way to deal with the problem outside of killing him? Honestly, if your main way to deal with opponents is lethal unprovoked violence, I'd say that you're roleplaying an evil character.


[*] Assuming there is a modern shared morality...


A good guy would think about every person he meets, like we do in real life, and using lethal force as the only last resort. Because good doesn't kill. Good helps the misguided to redeem themselves, after potentially dealing an appropriate punishment decided outside of the spot of the moment, which takes time and reflection, and by people not involved with the initial action.

So yes, not having something classified as evil requires you to think about every opponent, unless you're classified as evil yourself.

Being classified as evil allows indiscriminate violence. Just like in real life. We deem smallpox to be "KoS". We determined that its continued existence is antithetical to ours, and we eradicated it. It certainly wasn't evil to do so, because we were justified in that, by the fact that smallpox had no way to change its behaviour. In a fantasy game, determining that human woodcutters need to be dealt with because they are cutting down the trees that store the souls of your loved ones until they move on to the afterlife can be dealt by educating them and stopping them. You don't need to kill all humans, because they wouldn't be essentially evil. They would be doing an evil act, woodcutting your loved ones, but they wouldn't be essentially evil. So, when you meet a woodcutter, you'd need to think a lot about it. Is he doing it knowingly, or not? Is he doing that because his legitimate authority forced him to do so? And so on. You can't just see someone cutting down a birch tree and roll initiative, despite the gravity of the crime.

If he is under a curse to cut wood because a God created him in a way that he can't help but cut birch trees, then well, if there is no way to lift the curse and he can't help cutting birch tree because the curse override his free will, then activating your McGuffin to remove all of them would be more justified.

Just because the swordsman in the Indiana Jones movie isn't evil by nature doesn't mean you have to wonder about his motivation and discuss his moral standing.

The swordman is actually threatening Indiana Jones and is telegraphed as dangerously skilled. Of course Indiana Jones had to wonder about his moral standing. It took a split second: he was assaulting him and therefore Indiana Jones was justified to act in self-defence. If the swordman was attacking him because Indiana Jones had stolen an idol from his temple a while ago, Indiana Jones would be a scum for adding killing to theft. And to lessen his scum aspect for the theft of cultural artifact that we, as 2025 viewers might see as problematic despite being representative of what a 1930 archeologist would do, his theft is "justified" by the idea that he's saving archeological goods from traffickers or Nazis.

Most human beings enjoy violence to some extent, as long as no one actually gets hurt in the real world. This is a natural part of human nature that can be explored responsibly. It can be escapism pure and simple. This naturally begs the question I'm sure some of you are thinking, if you're not thinking of the implications all the time, what is the difference between an opponent being evil or not?

Well, this questions is solved by your initial axiom: "having no evil doesn't mean you have to take into account the situation of every opponent". So you initially removed the main difference between having evil or not.

In this case, you probably don't need evil in your campaign. But not everyone adhere to your axiom.

Let's take a simple example of the stereotypical evil orc game. Zoomed in, viewed encounter by encounter it may look no different weather they're evil or not.

If we accept your idea that good character can kill people wantonly because it suits them. If you see, say, clichéed evil orcs capturing the daughter of your village chief to sacrifice her to their god, and there is no evil, when you infiltrate the orc fortress and are seen by orc janitors who are about to sound the alarm, and there is absolute evil and the orcs are it, you can kill the janitors. If there is not, there is a strong chance the janitor is just a janitor. He has nothing to do with the human sacrifice planned by the orc leader. He's just an employee working for the wrong guys. He might not even know they are into human sacrifices. If you're invading their office and kill them, you're probably not better than the human sacrificers in the first place. You'll probably be able to rationalize your evil act by saying you had no choice, and after all you only followed orders from your village chief's and that you served the greater good by killing 3 janitors to save a single chief's daughter somehow. But without essential evil to cover your act, there is no way your janitorial assault wasn't evil in the first place. You killed 3 janitors because it was convenient. You're roleplaying murderers.

(Which is fine. It can be cathartic to roleplay people with vastly different moral norms as ours, the same it is fun to read about Greek heroes or Roland or... but we don't pretend that they are nice guys.)

Then near campaign's end your party gets a mcguffin that allows you to take care of the orc problem, permanently. You do it... right?

No. If you find an orc-genociding weapon and use it while knowing that orcs are people like you and me, you're evil. Unless there is evil, and orcs are established as smallpox, in which case of course you can do that, as humanity did with smallpox, without qualm. And that doesn't make you evil.

By the logic of the campaign, it's the only reasonable conclusion. Orcs are pure evil, they can only hurt everyone in the world and never be redeemed. It is the right decision, you couldn't even argue otherwise. No matter how correct this line of thinking is in the game world, for the people playing the game this can be a disturbing and dark conclusion. This is the disconnect, having true, pure evil species in a game puts you on a dark path.

No, it puts you on the path where you can eradicate them without asking too many questions every single time.

I think most people can agree it's fine to kill a fly in the real world, but it's a lot less fine if someone traps and tortures the fly. Plucking it's wings off under a magifying glass to prolong it's suffering. Laughing at it and encouraging people around them to watch it twich. Likewise it's fine to have consequence free violence in a game, less fine if someone is enjoying the pain and suffering they are doing in game, and something being evil is the best excuse for this behavior. I'm sure most DM's have a line with this sort of thing and will not let it go too far, but again, having evil in the game puts you on this dark path. Even if you don't follow it yourself, it is there and it encourages you to walk further down it.

Hum, no? In real life, there are people that think that killing people is right under some circumstances (they call that the death penalty) and I am pretty sure not all of them are into torture because of that? Having in game a situation where something is irredeemably evil (because of mystical circumstances, since we have no comparison in real life) like a curse (vampire, werewolves, elves...) or being created for that (demons, orcs...) make you sure that they can be killed because there is no possible redemption. That's the same reasoning as applying the death penalty in real life, except that you can be certain that there is no possible redemption in the future, and that doesn't seem to turn people from country who practice it into torture-hungry sociopaths. I am not sure the "if there is cause to justify killing, you'll end up enjoying pain and suffering" argument is grounded in reality.